[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 8, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65417-65424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-18788]



[[Page 65417]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-OAR-R05-2005-OH-0005; FRL-8228-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio 
Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action on a variety of revisions to 
particulate matter regulations submitted by Ohio on July 18, 2000. EPA 
is approving revisions to the form of opacity limits for utility and 
steel mill storage piles and roadways. EPA is approving a modest 
realignment of emission limits in the Cleveland area within the 
constraints of a revised modeled attainment demonstration. EPA is 
approving formalization of existing requirements for continuous 
emission monitoring for certain types of facilities, criteria for the 
state to issue equivalent visible emission limits, and revised limits 
for stationary internal combustion engines. However, EPA is 
disapproving authority for revising emission limits for Ford Motor's 
Cleveland Casting Plant via Title V permit modifications. Also, EPA is 
deferring action on equivalent visible emission limit rules to solicit 
comment on certain ramifications of its proposed approval.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 8, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2005-OH-0005. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Publicly available docket materials 
are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in 
hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and 
Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 
This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone 
John Summerhays at (312) 886-6067 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Environmental 
Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 
886-6067, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document is organized as follows:

I. Does This Action Apply to Me?
II. Summary of State Submittal and Proposed Rulemakings
III. Response to Comments
IV. Final EPA Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action applies to you if you are interested in the emission 
limitations applicable to airborne particulate matter in the State of 
Ohio. This action especially applies to you if you are interested in 
the emission limitations applicable to utility and iron and steel 
manufacturing sources in Ohio and to Ford Motor Company's Cleveland 
Casting Plant, to which most of the limit revisions addressed in this 
notice apply.

II. Summary of State Submittal and Proposed Rulemakings

    Ohio adopted major revisions to its particulate matter regulations 
in 1991, addressing requirements of the Clean Air Act amendments of 
1977 and 1990. Ohio has submitted and EPA has approved those 
regulations (see 59 FR 27464, May 27, 1994, and 61 FR 29662, June 12, 
1996). However, several companies appealed those regulations to the 
State's Environmental Review Board. As a result of lengthy discussions 
aimed at resolving these appeals, Ohio adopted an assortment of 
revisions to its particulate matter regulations on December 17, 1997. 
Ohio submitted the revised regulations to EPA on July 18, 2000.
    EPA proposed action in two parts, published respectively on 
December 2, 2002, at 67 FR 71515, and on August 9, 2005, at 70 FR 
46127. The first notice addressed most of the State's submittal. That 
notice proposed to approve: (1) A redesign of the limits on visible 
emissions from roadways and storage pile operations at utility storage 
piles; (2) a similar redesign of the visible emission limits for 
roadways and storage piles at iron and steel facilities; (3) criteria 
for determining the appropriate visible emissions limit for cases where 
a source meets its mass emission limit but cannot comply with the 
standard visible emissions limit, with provision that the State may 
establish alternate visible emission limits according to these criteria 
without need for review by EPA; (4) requirements for continuous 
emission monitoring systems for a range of sources, and (5) 
miscellaneous other revisions. This notice proposed to disapprove 
provisions by which Ford could modify its emission limits via 
amendments to its Title V permit prior to EPA approval of a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision.
    The second notice of proposed rulemaking proposed to approve 
modification of the limits for several facilities in Cuyahoga County 
(the Cleveland area), including Ford, LTV, and General Chemical. 
Further description of the State submittal and EPA's evaluation of the 
submittal and its proposed action are provided in the respective 
notices.
    The rules addressed in this rulemaking are rules that were 
effective in Ohio on January 31, 1998. Ohio subsequently adopted and 
submitted further revisions to their particulate matter regulations, 
effective April 14, 2003, which modify the opacity limitations for 
large coal-fired boilers and which make miscellaneous minor revisions. 
Those further revisions are being addressed in separate rulemaking, 
including proposed rulemaking published on June 27, 2005, and are not 
addressed here.

III. Response to Comments

    EPA received one set of comments, from Ford Motor Company dated 
January 31, 2003. These comments objected to EPA's proposed action, 
published on December 2, 2002, proposing to disapprove a provision for 
Ford Motor Company to obtain revised emission limits for its Cleveland 
Casting Plant by means of Title V permit revisions or by new source 
permit. EPA received no other comments on either notice of proposed 
rulemaking. The following paragraphs describe Ford Motor Company's 
comments and provide EPA's response to those comments. For convenience, 
the remainder of this notice will refer to the commenter as Ford and 
will refer to the pertinent facility as the Cleveland Casting Plant.
    Comment: Ford described its Cleveland Casting Plant at length. 
Later in its comment letter, Ford described the plant and its pollution 
control systems as complex and subject to frequent changes as 
production demands change. These descriptions support comments that 
Ford must have an expeditious process to obtain reconfigured emission 
limits to accommodate periodic plant reconfigurations.
    Response: EPA understands the complexity of the Cleveland Casting 
Plant. A more detailed discussion of Ford's comments and EPA views on 
the need for expeditious changes in limits is provided below.
    Comment: Ford delineates a history of State and federal rulemaking 
on Ohio particulate matter issues relevant to the Cleveland Casting 
Plant.

[[Page 65418]]

    Response: In most respects the history is an accurate chronology of 
the identified rulemakings. One factual inaccuracy in the chronology is 
the statement that Ohio adopted the rules adopted in December 1996 and 
submitted them to EPA ``shortly thereafter''; in fact, the rules were 
adopted in December 1997 and were not submitted until July 2000.
    A few additional elements of the chronology in the comment also 
warrant note. EPA proposed rulemaking on a portion of Ohio's July 2000 
submittal on December 2, 2002. As stated in that notice of proposed 
rulemaking, at 67 FR 71516, ``[b]ased on discussions with USEPA, Ohio 
is conducting a further assessment of whether the revised limits in 
Cuyahoga County suffice to assure attainment of the annual particulate 
matter standard. USEPA is deferring action on these revisions pending 
receipt of this further assessment.'' Ohio provided further materials 
on February 12, 2003, January 7, 2004, February 1, 2005, and April 21, 
2005. EPA then proposed to approve the Cuyahoga County limits on August 
9, 2005.
    This expanded chronology illustrates several points. First, 
attainment demonstrations can raise significant issues, such that in 
this case Ohio was providing supplemental material over a period of 
more than two years. Second, this chronology is directly relevant to 
the Cleveland Casting Plant, since some of the supplemental material 
directly pertains to this facility. Third, had EPA taken earlier 
action, that action presumably would have been to disapprove the limits 
due to inadequate support, including the limits being sought by Ford.
    Comment: Section III.A of Ford's comments states, ``The flexibility 
in OAC 3745-17-12(I)(50) and (51) is critical to the ongoing viability 
of the Casting Plant.'' Ford highlights the complexity of its Cleveland 
Casting Plant. Ford provides a conceptual example involving two 
processes (labeled Process A and Process B) and two emission control 
systems (labeled Collector C and Collector D), noting in the example 
that emissions from Process A may go mostly to Collector C but may also 
in part to Collector D, and similarly the emissions from Process B may 
go partly to both collectors. Ford states as part of this example that 
the emission limits in the SIP reflect the existing configuration of 
the distribution of emissions from various processes to the various 
control devices. Ford states that even if, for example, Process B shut 
down, such that it would be more efficient to shut Collector D down and 
route all Process A emissions to Collector C, the SIP would prohibit 
that, and Ford would be required to continue operating Collector D 
until a SIP revision was completed.
    Ford makes a few additional comments in this section of its comment 
letter. Ford mentions its participation in EPA's Energy Star program 
for energy efficiency and its commitment to pollution prevention as an 
implementer of the ISO 14001 program. Ford highlights its view that the 
revisions made under this process have no detrimental environmental 
effect, because the revised limits must provide for attainment just as 
the existing SIP does. Ford further notes that the process in Rule 
3745-17-12(I)(50) and (51) do in fact provide for the opportunity for 
EPA, Ohio EPA, and the public to review and comment on potential 
revisions, and the process is simply more streamlined than 
``traditional SIP revisions.''
    Response: EPA does not dispute Ford's statements that the Cleveland 
Casting Plant is a complex facility with numerous emitting processes 
connected in a complex array to numerous control systems. EPA also does 
not dispute Ford's statements that shifts in production demands require 
periodic reconfigurations in plant processes. However, EPA disagrees 
with Ford's view that the SIP requires and can only be written in a 
manner that requires a specific plant configuration, and EPA disagrees 
with Ford's conclusion that these circumstances warrant a process that 
circumvents standard SIP review.
    The limits for the Cleveland Casting Plant in the Ohio SIP have 
various formats; some limits regulate pounds per hour for a specific 
emission unit, some limits regulate pounds per hour for a group of 
emission units, a few limits regulate mass per cubic foot of exhaust 
gas for one or multiple emission units, and certain limits regulate the 
hours per day that selected units may operate. In a handful of cases, 
the rules specify the control system that shall be used for the 
identified emission unit(s). As is discussed below, EPA approved these 
limits but did not and does not mandate the use of any particular 
format so long as the limit is enforceable and helps provide for 
attainment.
    Ford does not provide a rationale for its statement that the SIP 
requires a specific mode of operation. In particular, Ford's 
presentation of its example does not support the claim that the SIP 
mandates continued operation of Collector D even after shutdown of the 
Process A that is the principal source of emissions controlled by 
Collector D. This is a critical shortcoming in Ford's comments, since 
this statement is a fundamental basis for Ford's argument that an 
expeditious process for altering SIP limits is needed to accommodate 
changes in operations at the Cleveland Casting Plant.
    Despite Ford's failure to justify its statement that the SIP 
requires a specific mode of operation, EPA analyzed this statement 
further. First, EPA examined this statement conceptually in the context 
of Ford's illustrative example. In the example, Ford claims that the 
SIP would require continued operation of Collector D even after the 
shutdown of Process B, and that routing all of Process A emissions to 
Collector C would violate the SIP. EPA examined the rules it proposed 
to approve and found no cases in which the rules require operation of a 
control device that is not receiving emissions. Also, while EPA 
identified cases in which the rules direct Ford to route emissions from 
a process to a particular collector, EPA finds no cases in which the 
rules direct Ford to route emissions from a process to multiple control 
devices, and EPA found no rules prohibiting Ford from routing zero 
emissions to a particular collector. Thus, EPA finds no cases in which 
the rules prohibit routing all emissions from a process to a single 
collector but instead mandate that a portion of the emissions be routed 
to a second collector that might otherwise be shut down.
    In a few cases, the rules do require that all emissions from 
identified processes be routed to a particular collector. These cases 
are discussed below.
    Continuing its examination of Ford's example, EPA assessed whether 
continued operation of Collector D might be indirectly required in 
order to achieve emission reduction requirements. Two scenarios warrant 
consideration: (1) Collector C has the capacity to control successfully 
all of Process A's emissions, and (2) Collector C does not have the 
capacity to control successfully all of Process A's emissions. 
(``Control successfully'' here means satisfying the emission limits 
that apply to Collector C.) In the first scenario, routing all of 
Process A's emissions to Collector C would create no violation of the 
SIP. In the second scenario, Ford would be violating the SIP. Ford has 
several options for remedying such a violation. Ford could improve 
Collector C so that it can successfully control all of Process A's 
emissions. Ford could reroute the requisite fraction of Process A's 
emissions to some other collector with the capacity to control that 
fraction of Process A's emissions. (Such rerouting is permissible under 
the SIP in virtually all cases.) Over the longer run, Ford

[[Page 65419]]

could propose a control strategy based on highly effective control 
devices that maximize the company's flexibility to increase operations 
at individual processes and still remain within emission limits needed 
to assure attainment. Similarly, unlike prior State rulemakings, Ford 
could recommend rules that would eliminate those few cases in which 
emissions from specified processes are directed to be controlled by 
specified control equipment.
    Ford has not addressed these options for increasing its flexibility 
for operating the Cleveland Casting Plant in compliance with SIP 
limits. Therefore, Ford has not demonstrated that the desired 
flexibility in plant operations while complying with SIP limits can 
only be achieved by being granted an expedited process for revising SIP 
limits.
    In observing that SIP revisions can be time consuming, Ford makes 
reference to the length of time involved in the present rulemaking 
completed by today's notice. EPA has several responses. First, as noted 
previously, and contrary to Ford's chronology, Ohio did not submit the 
rule package until July 2000. EPA assumes that Ohio used the time 
between rule adoption and package submittal to prepare materials to 
support the submittal and justify EPA approval. In fact, EPA's December 
2002 rulemaking deferred action on the portion of the submittal 
addressing Cleveland area limits for the express purpose of soliciting 
further information regarding these limits. The limits at issue 
included limits for the Cleveland Casting Plant, and the supporting 
information that Ohio provided in January 2004 for the Cleveland 
Casting Plant (along with information for other facilities that Ohio 
provided in February 2005) provided critical justification for the 
August 2005 proposed action and today's final action to approve the 
revisions to emission limits at the Cleveland Casting Plant that are 
included in Ohio's submittal.
    EPA commends Ford for implementing the ISO 14001 program and 
participating in EPA's Energy Star program. However, these actions by 
Ford do not support allowing changes to applicable limits without 
proper SIP review. Regarding the brief comments here on the review 
process, a later section of this notice reviews these comments together 
with the more elaborate comments on the subject that Ford made 
elsewhere in its letter.
    Comment: Ford provides several comments under the heading ``US 
EPA's rationale for the proposed disapproval is unsupported by the text 
of the preamble.'' Ford characterizes EPA's concern as being ``based 
almost exclusively on two interrelated points: (1) A concern that 
authorizing revisions to the applicable emission limitations by the 
mechanism specified in OAC 3745-17-12(I)(50) and (51) would not satisfy 
the criteria in section 110 of the Act, and (2) a belief that issuing a 
Title V permit with an alternative emission limit would somehow revise 
the SIP.'' Ford states, ``Both of these concerns are unfounded.''
    As a subheading under the above heading, Ford states ``Both OAC 
3745-17-12(I)(50) and (51) meet the criteria of section 110 of the 
Clean Air Act for inclusion in the SIP. If OAC 3745-17-12(I)(50) is 
approved as part of the SIP, the establishment of alternative emission 
limits pursuant to that rule does not modify the SIP.''
    Ford summarizes the SIP requirements under Clean Air Act section 
110(a)(2). Ford states, ``The language in OAC 3745-17-12(I)(50) and 
(51) satisfies all of these requirements.'' Ford finds that EPA's 
notice of proposed rulemaking does not disagree; Ford observes that 
``Instead, the preamble focuses on permits to be issued under OAC 3745-
17-12(I)(50) * * * [and] expresses a concern that [such a permit] would 
somehow impermissibly revise the SIP.''
    Ford continues, ``Nothing in the regulations at issue allows Ohio 
EPA or Ford to deviate from the Section 110 requirements concerning SIP 
revisions * * *. [I]f OAC 3745-17-12(I)(50) is approved as part of the 
SIP, the SIP would expressly permit the creation of alternative 
emission limits. Establishing alternative emission limits * * * 
pursuant to the requirements of OAC 3745-17-12(I)(50) would not be a 
revision of the SIP.'' [emphasis in original]
    Response: Possibly the most important requirement of section 110 is 
the requirement that the SIP provide for attainment of the air quality 
standards. This action approves a set of specific limits for the 
Cleveland Casting Plant and other Cleveland area facilities that EPA is 
satisfied will assure attainment of the applicable particulate matter 
standards (specifically the standards for particles nominally 10 
micrometers and smaller, known as PM10). The provisions of 
OAC 3745-17-12(I)(50) that Ford supports state, ``Compliance with an 
alternative emission limitation or control requirement in effect 
pursuant to this paragraph shall not constitute a violation of 
paragraph (I) of this rule * * *.'' That is, the rule supported by Ford 
would allow the facility to violate limits that help assure that 
Cleveland will attain the air quality standards. Although the rule 
dictates that the alternative limits must have been demonstrated to 
provide for attainment, the rule provides a process that shortchanges 
EPA's statutory role in reviewing whether the alternate limits in fact 
assure attainment. Indeed, this rule must be considered to authorize 
establishment of alternative limits that EPA after proper review would 
find inadequate to assure attainment. Consequently, approval of this 
rule would result in a SIP that no longer assures attainment of the air 
quality standards, in clear contravention of section 110 of the Clean 
Air Act.
    Ford argues at length that upon approval of OAC 3745-17-12(I)(50), 
the establishment of alternative limits in accordance with that 
paragraph would not revise the SIP. This argument is not germane, 
because it disputes a mischaracterized, transformed version of EPA's 
rationale. EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking focuses on the changes 
to emission limitations that would be involved in use of the rule which 
Ford supports. In substantive terms, OAC 3745-17-12(I)(50) would 
authorize Ohio to permit Ford to violate some of the limits in the SIP, 
so long as Ford is complying with alternate limits established by 
permit. In Title V terms, the emission limits are quintessential 
``applicable requirements'' that must be identified in the Title V 
permit. EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking in a few places uses a 
shorthand description of the problem, describing the Ohio rule as in 
effect revising the SIP through use of Title V permits. Ford's 
objection to this shorthand description of the problem overlooks the 
substantive point that Ohio's rule would impermissibly use Title V 
permits to alter SIP emission limits, or more precisely would use Title 
V permits to render moot some of the emission limits in the SIP and to 
establish alternative limits that effectively replace the SIP limits. 
Under the Clean Air Act, this is not allowable.
    Ford is addressing a hypothetical question, i.e., with a 
hypothesized SIP that contains the provisions of OAC 3745-17-12(I)(50), 
whether use of those provisions to establish new limitations and render 
moot some of the existing SIP emission limitations would constitute a 
revision to the SIP. Ford's question is tantamount to asking, ``If 
provisions in the SIP authorized revision of core SIP elements (i.e. 
emission limitations), would it constitute a SIP revision to implement 
those provisions to revise those SIP elements?'' EPA need not resolve 
this hypothetical question, because EPA may not approve provisions that 
would authorize Ohio to make unenforceable

[[Page 65420]]

some of the limitations established to help assure attainment.
    By extension, Ford's rationale could be interpreted to suggest that 
rules approved into the SIP need not contain any specific emission 
limitations, and that it should suffice for all of the specific 
emission limitations to be established as part of a Title V permit, so 
long as a requirement exists for such limits to be demonstrated to 
provide for attainment. EPA clearly objects to such an approach. The 
Clean Air Act requires SIPs to contain specific, enforceable emission 
limits providing for attainment, and EPA may not approve a plan that 
mandates but does not specify such limits. Furthermore, the Clean Air 
Act clearly delineates the process by which such limits are to be 
established and revised, a process that OAC 3745-17-12(I)(50) would 
shortchange.
    Comment: Ford states, ``US EPA has recognized the need for `SIP 
Flexibility.' '' Ford attached a letter from EPA to Ohio that addresses 
negotiations regarding SIP flexibility that ultimately led to Ohio's 
adoption of OAC 3745-17-12(I)(50). Ford quotes from this letter to 
demonstrate that EPA acknowledges the need for flexibility for Ford to 
obtain alternative limits ``following relatively expeditious U.S. EPA 
review.'' Ford states, ``While U.S. EPA indicated that the Ford-Ohio 
EPA approach to providing flexibility deviated slightly from U.S. EPA's 
`traditional policy' on `director's discretion,' U.S. EPA never 
indicated that the approach did not meet the criteria of Section 110.'' 
Ford notes that EPA anticipated issuing a SIP Flexibility Policy 
offering such expeditious limit revisions, observes that the policy was 
apparently never issued, but nevertheless urges EPA to approve OAC 
3745-17-12(I)(50) for purposes of providing such flexibility.
    Response: As Ford suspects, EPA has not issued the revised policy 
on SIP flexibility that the quoted letter anticipated. Thus, EPA 
reviewed OAC 3745-17-12(I)(50) in light of existing policy, including 
``traditional policy'' on ``director's discretion.'' The term 
``director's discretion'' denotes state rule provisions which authorize 
state agencies to establish or revise source requirements in the SIP 
without needing approval from EPA. This term is generally applied in 
cases where the source requirements are significant, and EPA policy 
states that such provisions shortchange necessary EPA review and cannot 
be approved.
    Ford mischaracterizes EPA's statements regarding director's 
discretion. Far from indicating that the deviations from director's 
discretion policy are ``slight,'' EPA's letter stated: ``Ford's 
proposal deviates from USEPA's traditional policy on `director's 
discretion' in several important respects.'' EPA then identified three 
specific deficiencies, in brief that the proposal allows revisions 
without affirmative EPA concurrence, allows only a short review period, 
and does not address various identified issues regarding enforcement of 
revised limits. Since OAC 3745-17-12(I)(50) fundamentally retains the 
same pertinent features as the proposal (with only a modest lengthening 
of the still brief EPA review period), OAC 3745-17-12(I)(50) contains 
these same deficiencies. Ford does not comment on these identified 
deficiencies, and EPA continues to believe that these deficiencies 
warrant disapproval of OAC 3745-17-12(I)(50).
    The history of the limits in OAC 3745-17-12(I) provides perspective 
on the degree of operational flexibility inherent in these limits. OAC 
3745-17-12(I), as adopted in May 1991, included three options 
recommended by Ford. One of these options was labeled ``the cupola dust 
collection upgrade plan'' and involved improvements in pollution 
control equipment which would accommodate expanded production by the 
Cleveland Casting Plant. The other two options involved less production 
and less aggressive efforts at emissions control. The option ultimately 
recommended by Ford, and adopted by Ohio in November 1991, reflects one 
of these latter options. All three options involve numerous limits on 
the number of hours of operation of major processes at the Cleveland 
Casting Plant, presumably designed to match the alternate projections 
of plant operations. Since EPA's guidance for PM10 
attainment demonstrations mandates assuring attainment even with full 
allowable emissions, limits on operating hours serve as an alternative 
to tighter limits on emissions as a means of requiring attainment level 
daily emission rates. Thus, the attainment plan that Ford recommended 
may be viewed as reflecting Ford's preferences as to the mix of limits 
on emission control levels and limits on operations.
    EPA's letter identifies various means by which Ford could obtain 
the desired flexibility without bypassing EPA's statutory SIP review 
process. The letter states:

    For example, Ford should investigate strategies that apply a 
more uniform set of limitations that would address a broader range 
of operational configurations. Similarly, Ford should investigate 
strategies that mix further controls with less restrictive sets of 
operation limitations. Such approaches should be fully investigated 
as means of allowing Ford the flexibility to make modest operational 
changes while still providing adequate review of changes that could 
significantly affect air quality.

Ford does not comment on these approaches. EPA remains convinced that 
Ford has multiple options for obtaining the flexibility it desires 
without bypassing EPA's statutory process for reviewing revisions to 
limits established to assure attainment.

    Comment: Ford makes a series of comments under the heading ``US 
EPA's White Paper Number 2 Supports the Creation of Alternative 
Emission Limits.'' Ford observes that this white paper provides for 
inclusion of alternative emission limits in Title V operating permits. 
Ford quotes from the white paper:

    States may revise their SIP's to provide for establishing 
equally stringent alternatives to specific requirements set forth in 
the SIP without the need for additional source-specific SIP 
revisions. To allow alternatives to the otherwise-applicable SIP 
requirements (i.e., emissions limitations, test methods, monitoring, 
and recordkeeping) the State would include language in SIP's to 
provide substantive criteria governing the State's exercise of the 
alternative requirement authority.

Ford further quotes language from the white paper that describes a 
sample set of SIP language that would provide the process for 
implementing such a provision. Ford observes that the process in OAC 
3745-17-12(I)(50) parallels this approach suggested in EPA's white 
paper.

    Ford notes that EPA's Title V permit rules, specifically at 40 CFR 
70.6(a)(1)(iii), ``provide a mechanism for states to establish 
alternative emission limits.'' Ford quotes language in Ohio's Title V 
rules (at OAC 3745-77-0(A)(1)(c)) that it believes ``tracks 40 CFR 
70.6(a)'' and authorizes Ohio to establish alternative emission limits 
``[i]f the applicable implementation plan so provides''. Given that EPA 
approved these Ohio Title V rules, and given that EPA ``advocated 
alternative emission limits in White Paper 2,'' Ford finds EPA's 
proposed disapproval of OAC 3745-17-12(I)(50) and (51) to be 
``arbitrary and unreasonable.''
    Response: White Paper Number 2 indeed provides the options for 
states to use Title V permits to ``establish equally stringent 
alternatives to specific requirements set forth in the SIP'' (emphasis 
added). However, Ford is seeking for Ohio to have broader authority to 
make more revisions than is contemplated in the white paper. If Ford 
were merely seeking the option to establish replacement limits that for 
each emission point were equally

[[Page 65421]]

stringent to the existing SIP limit, then there would be no need for 
OAC 3745-17-12(I)(50) to require modeling to demonstrate that the 
alternatives provide for attainment. Instead, Ford is clearly seeking 
for Ohio to have the authority to use Title V permits to set less 
stringent limits for some emission points and more stringent limits on 
other sources. Indeed, OAC 3745-17-12(I)(50) expressly provides that 
Ford need not meet the existing SIP limits so long as it is meeting the 
alternative limits in a permit, a provision that clearly anticipates 
some replacement limits being less stringent than the corresponding 
specific requirements of the current SIP. Thus, the language of White 
Paper Number 2 as quoted by Ford does not provide for the types of 
revisions to limits that Ford is contemplating.
    Ford may believe that White Paper Number 2 may be construed to 
encourage use of Title V permits to establish sets of limits that 
collectively are equivalent to a set of limits in the SIP. Ford would 
presumably argue that any combination of limits for the Cleveland 
Casting Plant that suitable modeling shows to provide for attainment 
may be considered equivalent to the attainment plan limits in the SIP. 
However, the language of the white paper as quoted by Ford makes clear 
that revisions that may arguably be collectively equivalent but do not 
provide equivalence for each individual limit are outside the scope of 
this white paper.
    Conceptually, the Clean Air Act provides complementary but distinct 
roles and processes for establishing limits under Title I and compiling 
limits under Title V. Title I establishes a variety of requirements, 
including the requirement for emission limits and other limitations 
sufficient to provide for attainment. Title I further provides a 
process by which states must submit such limitations to EPA, EPA is to 
evaluate the completeness of submittals, and then EPA is granted 12 
months to review and rulemaking on complete submittals. Title V, by 
contrast, provides for permits that tabulate the existing SIP 
requirements that apply to an existing source, following a more 
expedited process based on the statutory presumption that these permits 
will not be altering the limitations or other provisions by which the 
state has met Title I requirements. EPA believes that Title V permits 
provide a suitable mechanism for certain limited housekeeping 
operations such as clarification of existing limits or recordkeeping 
requirements for a specific site, and establishing periodic compliance 
monitoring. OAC 3745-17-12(I)(50) is fundamentally contrary to the 
Clean Air Act in seeking to authorize potentially sweeping revisions in 
the limitations Ford is subject to for Title I purposes based on a 
process designed for the far more narrow purposes of Title V.
    Ford's comments focus on the timetable for review of SIP revisions 
versus for review of Title V and new source permits, and so this was a 
focus of EPA's review of Ford's comments. However, another important 
distinction between these two review processes is the consequences of 
EPA inaction. In permit review, if EPA chooses not to review a permit, 
the state may issue the permit. However, under Section 110(k), if EPA 
takes no action on a SIP revision request, the SIP is not revised. This 
contrast reflects a statutory distinction between the level of review 
needed to compile applicable requirements (or, for new sources, to set 
specific limitations in accordance with established rule requirements) 
and the level of review needed to establish or revise those 
requirements. Thus, the fact that OAC 3745-17-12(I)(50) would provide 
for revisions to take effect unless EPA acts to object is a serious 
deficiency of this rule.
    Comment: Ford states that it undertakes frequent alterations of the 
Cleveland Casting Plant that, if OAC 3745-17-12(I)(50) is disapproved, 
would require SIP revisions. To illustrate this point, Ford provided as 
an attachment to its comments an annotated copy of OAC 3745-17-12(I) 
that delineates relevant revisions to the facility.
    Response: An examination of the alterations identified by Ford 
shows that a majority of the identified changes are shutdowns of 
specific emission units. Clearly, emission units that are shut down and 
have zero emissions are complying with the applicable emission limits. 
Thus, Ford has no need of a SIP revision to accommodate these plant 
alterations.
    The next most common type of alteration identified by Ford in this 
comment is a change in the description of an emission unit. For 
example, the emission unit identified in the rule as P909 is apparently 
now identified as P413, with no change and no apparent request for a 
change in the emission limit. For other examples as well, Ford provides 
no evidence that changes in the unit description signify any increase 
in emissions or any kind of violation of any emissions limit or other 
limitation.
    Some of the noted alterations are modifications of sources, which 
presumably were subject to the new source review process. New source 
review provides its own process for assuring that plant modifications 
do not cause violations of air quality standards, a process that 
maintains or if necessary lowers the limit on other sources to provide 
continued attainment. Ford does not need a separate process to address 
such source modifications. Furthermore, Ford's descriptions suggest 
that even in these cases there was no increase in emissions or emission 
limits at any emission point.
    Ford identifies a handful of additional plant alterations in the 
comment. Some alterations involve control of previously uncontrolled 
emissions, which as expected apparently does not result in Ford 
exceeding any emission limits or otherwise emitting more at any 
emission point. Other alterations involve rerouting of emissions, again 
with no apparent increase in allowable emissions at any emission point 
or violation of any limitations.
    In summary, none of the plant changes identified by Ford appears to 
result in any emission increase at any location or to make compliance 
with any limit any more difficult. Also, Ford has not identified any 
other plant alterations that they have foregone due to concerns about 
complying with existing limits. Thus, Ford's information on plant 
alterations indicated no need for revisions of the SIP limits that are 
being approved today. Therefore, it appears the information on plant 
alterations does not support Ford's claim that frequent modifications 
of the Cleveland Casting Plant require an expedited process for 
revising applicable emission limits.
    Comment: Ford makes a series of comments under a heading ``US EPA's 
proposed disapproval would create significant practical difficulties 
for all involved.'' First, Ford states, ``Since Ohio EPA adopted OAC 
3745-17-12(I)(50) and (51) in 1996, Ford has availed itself of the 
flexibility provisions in that rule many times.'' Ford asserts that 
``[d]isapproving this rule results in the need to revise the SIP to 
address these changes [in operations at the Cleveland Casting Plant].'' 
Ford comments that it ``prepared its Title V permit application based 
on the revised emissions limits that have resulted * * *.'' Finally, 
Ford expresses the view that ``site-specific SIP requirements, such as 
the ones applicable to Ford, should not require more scrutiny than is 
given to a typical new source construction permit or a facility-wide 
Title V operating permit.'' Ford recommends instead that EPA accept use 
of these permitting approaches that would apply the ``same

[[Page 65422]]

level scrutiny'' to revisions of limits for the Cleveland Casting 
Plant.
    Response: As discussed above, although Ford provided an extensive 
delineation of plant alterations that do not require limit revisions, 
Ford has not identified any specific SIP limits that the Cleveland 
Casting Plant, operated as Ford would like to operate it, would violate 
in the absence of a SIP revision. Thus, even if EPA were to accept 
Ford's view that an intended operational mode that violates SIP limits 
translates into a need for a SIP revision, it appears that operation in 
such a mode has not occurred in the last several years.
    Ford presumably understands that in the absence of a SIP revision, 
EPA judges compliance with the existing SIP. By claiming to have 
availed itself of ``flexibility'' in the State rule, Ford would appear 
to be claiming that it is violating the SIP. However, given the nature 
of the plant alterations described by Ford, it is not clear that such 
violations have occurred.
    Ford makes an interesting recommendation, for EPA to address site-
specific SIP revisions according to the same process as new source 
permits or Title V permits. However, this recommendation overlooks the 
distinctions in the nature of the issues that arise in these varying 
contexts. Title V permits are intended primarily simply to compile 
existing applicable requirements, so that these permits are expected 
not to raise fundamental issues about how the state is assuring 
attainment. While new source permits occasionally raise issues about 
assurance of attainment, these permits generally focus on other 
requirements, notably including control technology requirements and 
offset requirements (in nonattainment areas), that minimize the 
potential for attainment planning issues to arise. It is for this 
reason that the Clean Air Act and EPA's implementing regulations 
identify distinct review processes for existing source and new source 
permits versus for attainment plans, allowing permit review under an 
expedited timetable and allowing issuance in the absence of EPA 
objection but authorizing much longer review of attainment plans and 
providing that such revisions occur only with affirmative EPA action.
    Comment: Ford concludes that establishment of a streamlined 
mechanism for establishing alternate emission limits ``is what White 
Paper 2 anticipated.'' Further, ``[i]t is what the Title V rules 
provide for. It is logical and reasonable, and is supported by both 
science and law.'' Ford continues: ``Conservative modeling analyses and 
available ambient air quality monitoring data confirm that the PM-10 
emission limits applicable to Ford's operations will ensure ongoing 
attainment.'' Under these circumstances, Ford urges that EPA approve 
OAC 3745-17-12(I) in its entirety.
    Response: EPA concludes that actions that alter the emission limits 
must be subject to the full SIP review provided for in Clean Air Act 
section 110(k). The existence of a requirement for a modeled attainment 
demonstration does not lessen the need for EPA to review each 
attainment demonstration on a case by case basis. EPA may not 
shortchange this review by allowing alteration of the applicable limits 
by a Title V or a new source permitting process.

IV. Final EPA Action

    EPA is approving most elements of Ohio's particulate matter SIP 
revisions submitted July 18, 2000. EPA is approving revisions in Rule 
3745-17-01 and 3745-17-11 that revise limits for stationary internal 
combustion engines. EPA is approving revisions to Rule 3745-17-03, 
which include revisions to test methods associated with various rules 
identified in the paragraphs that follow. This rule, in particular Rule 
3745-17-03(C), also requires that sources subject to Appendix P of 40 
CFR 51 install, satisfactorily operate, and report results from 
continuous emission monitoring systems. In conjunction with this 
action, EPA is removing from the SIP the now-expired permits that Ohio 
previously submitted to satisfy Appendix P.
    EPA is approving revisions to Rule 3745-17-04, requiring immediate 
compliance with the newly adopted limitations in other rules being 
approved. EPA is approving revisions to Rule 3745-17-07 which, in 
combination with test method revisions in Rule 3745-17-03, provide a 
reformulated but equivalent set of limitations on fugitive dust from 
iron and steel and from utility facilities. EPA is also approving 
revisions in Rule 3745-17-07(B)(9) and (B)(10), related provisions in 
Rule 3745-17-08 (providing revised limits on fugitive dust at the Ford 
facility), and Rule 3745-17-11(B)(6) that specify emission limits for 
the Cleveland Casting Plant and for the ISG facility. EPA is approving 
most of the revisions in Rule 3745-17-12, including all of the Cuyahoga 
County emission limits contained in this rule. EPA is approving 
revisions to Rule 3745-17-13, which replace fugitive emission 
limitations for the Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Company facility with 
requirements that the facility follow specified practices to limit 
fugitive emissions. EPA is approving revisions to Rule 3745-17-14 that 
bring this rule into conformance with the approved contingency plan. 
(The approved rule also excludes a guidance statement that was not 
previously part of the SIP.)
    EPA is disapproving Rule 3745-17-12(I)(50) and 3745-17-12(I)(51), 
which would allow Ohio to incorporate a revised set of emission limits 
for Ford Motor Company's Cleveland Casting Plant into either a Title V 
permit or a new source permit. EPA has concluded that this type of 
revision to applicable limitations must be subject to the review 
process under section 110 of the Clean Air Act for revisions to state 
implementation plans. Final disapproval of these paragraphs does not 
start any sanctions clock. This submittal was not needed to meet any 
provision of the Clean Air Act. Disapproval of these paragraphs simply 
prevents the addition of these paragraphs to Ohio's state 
implementation plan and does not constitute a plan deficiency that 
under section 179 of the Clean Air Act would need to be remedied to 
avoid sanctions.
    EPA is deferring action on revisions in Rule 3745-17-07 relating to 
equivalent visible emissions limits. These revisions provide detailed 
criteria for issuance of such limits, and provide that limits that Ohio 
issues in accordance with these criteria need not be subject to formal 
EPA review to alter the federally enforceable limits. EPA intends to 
publish a separate proposed rulemaking notice soliciting comment on the 
ramifications of these revisions for previously approved equivalent 
visible emission limits.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action 
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning 
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

[[Page 65423]]

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that 
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state 
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that 
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it 
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the 
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a 
federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the 
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air 
Act.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health 
Risks and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.).

Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 8, 2007. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 19, 2006.
Gary Gulezian,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, title 40 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart KK--Ohio

0
2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(134) and removing 
and reserving paragraph (c)(88) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (134) On July 18, 2000, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 
submitted revised rules for particulate matter. Ohio adopted these 
revisions to address State-level appeals by various industry groups of 
rules that the State adopted in 1995 that EPA approved in 1996. The 
revisions provide reformulated limitations on fugitive emissions from 
storage piles and plant roadways, selected revisions to emission limits 
in the Cleveland area, provisions for Ohio to follow specified criteria 
to issue replicable equivalent visible emission limits, the correction 
of limits for stationary combustion engines, and requirements for 
continuous emissions monitoring as mandated by 40 CFR part 51, Appendix 
P. The State's submittal also included modeling to demonstrate that the 
revised Cleveland area emission limits continue to provide for 
attainment of the PM10 standards. EPA is disapproving two 
paragraphs that would allow revision of limits applicable to Ford Motor 
Company's Cleveland Casting Plant through permit revisions without the 
full EPA review provided in the Clean Air Act. EPA is also deferring 
action on revisions relating to equivalent visible emission limits.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) The following rules in Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-17 
as effective January 31, 1998: Rule OAC 3745-17-01, entitled 
Definitions, Rule OAC 3745-17-03, entitled Measurement methods and 
procedures, Rule OAC 3745-17-04, entitled Compliance time schedules, 
Rule OAC 3745-17-07, entitled Control of visible particulate emissions 
from stationary sources (except for revisions to paragraphs C and D), 
Rule OAC 3745-17-08, entitled

[[Page 65424]]

Restriction of emission of fugitive dust, Rule OAC 3745-17-11, entitled 
Restrictions on particulate emissions from industrial processes, Rule 
OAC 3745-17-13, entitled Additional restrictions on particulate 
emissions from specific air contaminant sources in Jefferson county, 
and OAC 3745-17-14, entitled Contingency plan requirements for Cuyahoga 
and Jefferson counties.
    (B) Rule OAC 3745-17-12, entitled Additional restrictions on 
particulate emissions from specific air contaminant sources in Cuyahoga 
county, as effective on January 31, 1998, except for paragraphs (I)(50) 
and (I)(51).
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) Letter from Robert Hodanbosi, Chief of Ohio EPA's Division of 
Air Pollution Control, to EPA, dated February 12, 2003.
    (B) Telefax from Tom Kalman, Ohio EPA, to EPA, dated January 7, 
2004, providing supplemental documentation of emissions estimates for 
Ford's Cleveland Casting Plant.
    (C) Memorandum from Tom Kalman, Ohio EPA to EPA, dated February 1, 
2005, providing further supplemental documentation of emission 
estimates.
    (D) E-mail from Bill Spires, Ohio EPA to EPA, dated April 21, 2005, 
providing further modeling analyses.

[FR Doc. E6-18788 Filed 11-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P